• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

The previous government could have made that debt work for us, if they'd bet on the right horse.

Instead, it went to either pet projects or floating Canada through a rough patch that wasn't as rough as it turned out to be. But Le Dauphin refused to change course, even in the face of a changing reality; thus, it cost him his leadership and robbed the country of time to batten the hatches against Hurricane Drumpf.

Sovereign debt isn't like personal debt, after all. We can and should take a risk, if the reward is tenable in jobs, influence, investment, or security.

Instead, we piss it away when the Red Team is holding the card, and get buy on ramen noodles when the Blue team is pinching pennies to see a zero balance.

I can buy a Starbucks a day, or I can buy a new garden shed. I can sell the shed when I sell the house.
 
I agree with Dapaterson. Your problem is not coffee: It's math.

I have no idea in which version of modern arithmetic's five times 1820 gets you 3640. ;)

Fooock! :oops: :D

OK then

5x7=35
35x52=1820
5x1820=9100
2x9100=18,200
18,200x20,000,000=364,000,000,000

Better?

Should have used my calculator the first time. Apparently the grey cells are dying. Insh'Allah.

Quite the defence budget sacrifice.

A Starbucks a day less = 364 BCAD for national security.
 
Better. Now your only problem is that by using 20,000,000 couples you are assuming that all toddlers and children drink $5 worth of coffee everyday.

I don't want to have to send Family Services after you. :giggle:

I was assuming our fertility rates were so low that we might as well assume that the number of toddlers is effectively zero.

Actual number of households - 15,000,000 (14,978,971 for Spock's Pedants)

Average number of people per household - 2.4

Given the number of seniors in the mix and the number of adults still living at home with their parents I figure Zero isn't bad for a back of the envelope Order of Magnitude estimate. ;)
 
Better. Now your only problem is that by using 20,000,000 couples you are assuming that all toddlers and children drink $5 worth of coffee everyday.

I don't want to have to send Family Services after you. :giggle:
Considering how much caffeine many expectant mothers drink, I suspect the kiddies are already hooked. Plus hot chocolate in Starbucks ain't cheap either....
 
I was assuming our fertility rates were so low that we might as well assume that the number of toddlers is effectively zero.

Actual number of households - 15,000,000 (14,978,971 for Spock's Pedants)

Average number of people per household - 2.4

Given the number of seniors in the mix and the number of adults still living at home with their parents I figure Zero isn't bad for a back of the envelope Order of Magnitude estimate. ;)

OK. So now, you have looked at defense spending increase in terms of average coffee consumption.

Lets look at it differently, also using averages:

Average individual income in Canada (Statscan, 2024 numbers, rounded up) : $66,000.
Average federal income tax rate: 25%
Average federal income tax paid as a result of these two numbers: $16,500
Your coffee annual "give up" number for an individual: $1820

Thus, increase in federal income tax required to generate that much extra revenue for defense: 11%

When you find enough Canadians willing to say they agree to increase the income taxes they pay by 11% in order to invest in National defense, let me know.

In the meantime, we can all continue to enjoy our coffee. :coffee:
 
Most Canadians are below average. Using averages exaggerates the financial realities of most Canadians.
 
Most Canadians are below average. Using averages exaggerates the financial realities of most Canadians.
Thank god for stats can giving us breakdowns

 
Thank god for stats can giving us breakdowns

That link is CRA, not Stats Can, and the division of the population into arbitrary tax brackets (vice percentiles or uniform dollar increments) makes it less suitable to actually describe the Canadian population. This CRA link is better but has substantially more extraneous information: Individual Income Tax Return Statistics (2022 tax year) - Canada.ca

Unfortunately, the income increments are not properly uniform and buckets get broader at higher incomes. This leads to distortions in the data above $100k income.
1747575994625.png

Stats Can used to hold all the data needed to make a useful histogram, but I can't seem to find those numbers today.
1747575461077.png
Stats Can does have more detailed break-downs, but everything I have found further breaks-down the data in a way that is difficult to re-aggregate.
 
The functional definition of 'average' implies that a lot of the data points (income, widget cost, etc.) will be below the 'average'. If everything is evenly distributed, half will be under, half will be over.
 
The functional definition of 'average' implies that a lot of the data points (income, widget cost, etc.) will be below the 'average'. If everything is evenly distributed, half will be under, half will be over.
Income is not evenly distributed. Most incomes are below average.
 
Back
Top